They had to decipher a dozen patents and 109 pages of jury instructions and, in just 21 hours, came up with a verdict that could change the face of the smartphone and tablet industries.

But the jury that awarded Apple victory in its US court battle with Samsung is under fire from legal experts for the quick decision, errors in damages calculations and comments made in the media by some jurors that appear to show flaws in their deliberations.

The nine-person jury on Friday ruled in favour of Apple on the majority of its claims against Samsung and awarded more than $1 billion in damages.

Advertisement

The quick decision came as a surprise as the jury – which included a retired electrical engineer, a homemaker, a bicycle shop manager, a construction worker and a US Navy veteran – needed to digest four weeks of court evidence. The decision came just in time for the weekend.

The Silicon Valley jury found that some of Samsung's products illegally copied features and designs exclusive to Apple's iPhone and iPad. Samsung sold more than 22 million smartphones and tablets that Apple claimed used its technology, including the "bounce-back" feature when a user scrolls to an end image, and the ability to zoom text with a tap of a finger.

Deliberations in the case were far more challenging than most. The jury was confronted with hundreds of questions on a 20-page verdict form that was more complicated than a US tax return. They had in the jury room more than two dozen electronic devices at issue, 12 patents to decipher and 109 pages of instructions from the judge on rendering a verdict.

Australian patent lawyer Mark Summerfield, of Watermark, said the decision came "ludicrously quick" and he was amazed that jurors were permitted to talk about the trial once it was over even though there was potential for the judge to overrule their verdict and for the decision to be appealed.

Kevin Johnson, attorney for Samsung, leaves court after the verdict.

Jury foreman Velvin Hogan has been particularly outspoken and said he wanted to give Samsung more than "just a slap on the wrist".

Lawyer community and news site Groklaw has rounded on this and other comments, as the jury instructions said damages are meant to compensate for loss incurred rather than a means of punishment.

Hogan reportedly told a court representative that the jurors had decided to reach a decision without needing to read the instructions.

"Comments by the jurors could be taken as evidence that they were not properly instructed, or that they failed to heed instructions, which provides additional grounds for appeal," Summerfield said.

He said he would "not at all be surprised" if US District Judge Lucy Koh "at least partly overrules the jury".

Patent system "out of control"

Before the verdict an intellectual property professor at the University of California Hastings Law School, Robin Feldman, described the case as unmanageable for a jury.

"There are more than 100 pages of jury instructions," Feldman said. "I don't give that much reading to my law students. They can't possible digest it.

"The trial is evidence of a patent system that is out of control. No matter what happens in this trial, I think people will need to step back and ask whether we've gone too far in the intellectual property system."

After the verdict was read, Judge Koh reduced the damages award by $2 million at Samsung's request because of inconsistencies in the jury's findings. In two instances the jury had awarded damages to Apple despite already concluding that the device in question didn't infringe.

Groklaw reported: "If the jury rushed so much it assigned $2 million to Apple, and then had to subtract it because there was no infringement, it raises a valid question: what was the basis for any of the damages figures the jury came up with? If they had any actual basis, how could they goof like this? Was there a factual basis for any of the damages figures?"

Samsung said in an emailed statement it will ask the judge to overturn the verdict. If Judge Koh doesn't overturn the award, Samsung said it will appeal the case.

Samsung emails "pretty damning"

Juror Manuel Ilagan told CNET News the jury knew after the first day of deliberations that Samsung had wronged Apple. He denied the decision was rushed despite saying the jury "skipped" a question that was "bogging us down" so "we could go on faster".

"It was clear there was infringement," Ilagan said. "The emails that went back and forth from Samsung execs about the Apple features that they should incorporate into their devices was pretty damning to me.

"And also, on the last day [Apple] showed the pictures of the phones that Samsung made before the iPhone came out and ones that they made after the iPhone came out. Some of the Samsung executives they presented on video [testimony] from Korea – I thought they were dodging the questions. They didn't answer one of them. They didn't help their cause."

In an interview on Saturday, jury foreman Hogan, 67, said Apple's arguments about the need to protect innovation were persuasive in the jury room. He also said video testimony from senior Samsung executives made it "absolutely" clear to them that the infringement was purposeful.

"We didn't want to give carte blanche to a company, by any name, to infringe someone else's intellectual property," Hogan told Reuters a day after the verdict.

Of the damages amount, he said: "We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist. We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."

"I need to do this for all of them"

Hogan told the court during jury selection last month that he spent seven years working with lawyers to obtain his own patent, one covering "video compression software", a hobby of his. Hogan said he worked in the computer hard-drive industry for 35 years.

"When I got in this case and I started looking at these patents I considered: 'If this was my patent and I was accused, could I defend it?' " Hogan explained to Bloomberg News.

On the night of August 22, after closing arguments, "a lightbulb went on in my head," he said. "I thought, I need to do this for all of them."

Hogan said in another interview that jurors were able to complete their deliberations in less than three days – much faster than legal experts had predicted – because a few had engineering and legal experience, which helped with the complex issues in play.

Once they determined Apple's patents were valid, jurors evaluated every single device separately, he said.

"We didn't just go into a room and start pitching cards into a hat," he said.

At one point during the second day of deliberations, jurors turned off the lights in the room to settle a debate about the potential influence screen brightness might have on Apple's graphics interface.

Their verdict: Apple's designs were unique.

"All of us feel we were fair, that we can stand by our verdict and that we have a clear conscience in that we were totally not biased one way or another," Hogan said.

Sales bans sought by Apple

Apple said it intends to seek sales bans against Samsung mobile products, which Samsung will oppose.

Seo Won-seok, a Seoul-based analyst at Korea Investment, said the popular zooming and bounce-back functions the jury said Samsung stole from Apple will be hard to replicate.

The companies could opt to pay Apple licensing fees for access to the technology or develop smarter technology to create similar features that don't violate the patent – at a cost likely to be passed on to consumers.

Samsung has vowed to appeal the verdict all the way to the US Supreme Court, arguing that Apple's patents for such "obvious" things as the rounded rectangle shape were wrongly granted.

A September 20 hearing is scheduled, at which Koh will consider Apple's request to make permanent a ban on US sales of Samsung devices including its Galaxy Tab 10.1 computer, as well as to extend the ban to other Samsung products.

Apple won less than half of what it sought in damages in the first lawsuit to go before a US jury in the fight to dominate the global smartphone market, though Judge Koh may later triple the damages against Samsung under federal law.

- with Reuters, AP, Bloomberg News

192 comments

Hmmmm...So, now it is official -- Samsung stuff is same as Apple.Why do we buy Apple at inflated price then?

Rudolf

Commenter

Rudolf

Date and time

August 27, 2012, 1:41PM

@Rudolf. My understanding is that Apple iPads and iPhones are very price competitive, so you're wrong to claim Apple apple prices are inflated. Mostly a result of Apple coming out with these products first and locking down huge parts orders making it hard for competitors to source parts. As well Apple pays low prices for parts due to enormous volume discounts. And on top of that the hardware and software quality is higher with Apple.

Commenter

DavidInNewtown

Date and time

August 27, 2012, 2:14PM

@Rudolf

I blame all those people with money for that. They seem to have some sort of fetish for the quality version instead of being satisfied with the cheap knock-off. Still there are a lot more of us than them, so it's a done deal ... proletarian brands will continue to outsell Apple.

Commenter

James

Date and time

August 27, 2012, 2:23PM

How on earth do you think the hardware quality is higher when they using Samsung SMT and every screen is cracked.

Commenter

JimP

Date and time

August 27, 2012, 2:28PM

@DavidInNewtown. You have no clue what you are talking about. Apple make a massive margin on their products. They made 13 billion PROFIT from 43 billion revenue.Plus the hardware isn't "superior" in Apple products, it all comes out of the Samsung factory then is put together by Foxxcon. Its the same

Commenter

Freddie

Date and time

August 27, 2012, 2:32PM

@Rudolf

Because Apple likes to take your money, which it can then use ot make ridiculous allegations against other companies and take them to court.

Commenter

AddledApple

Location

Australia

Date and time

August 27, 2012, 2:34PM

Don't you guys have a sense of humor?On the serious note -- i am an IT professional. I have iPhone. Why? Because it is damn good phone. It is easy to use and it works. It is pretty restrictive as a computer, but I had experience with other phones. Good as computers and crap as a phone. Given the device is primarily a phone, I stock with it.As far as computers go -- Apple is way overpriced. I rather use cheaper hardware (Samsung is OK) and run MacOS in a virtual machine when required.For many people buying an Apple shows just one goal -- to show others they can afford to buy an Apple product.

Commenter

Rudolf

Date and time

August 27, 2012, 2:56PM

We don't. Apple products are quite competitive in price.

Your Samsung phone is cheap because they didn't do any R&D. They just copied Apple. As their own documents, and Google emails, testified.

But feel free to ignore the evidence.

Commenter

ij

Date and time

August 27, 2012, 3:30PM

Rudolf, I have been an Apple user since the first Mac was invented, and every time I go into the office and am confronted with the Windows computer on my desk, I shake my head and wonder why people actually pay money to use the Windows platform. It has nothing to do with "showing others that I can afford to buy an Apple product", I assure you.

Commenter

Nicky

Location

Margate

Date and time

August 27, 2012, 3:34PM

@ij Was going to believe you until I re-read your post with the "We don't" statement... Clearly an unbiased view?

Related Coverage

25 Aug
Apple has won a jury verdict of more than $US1 billion against Samsung after a finding that Samsung infringed six of seven patents for mobile devices in the first lawsuit to go before a US jury in a fight for dominance of the global smartphone market.

26 Aug
APPLE won a sweeping $1 billion victory in its landmark patent dispute with Samsung when a federal court jury in the United States ruled that a series of smartphone and tablet features - from the rounded rectangle shape to the way screens slide and bounce to the touch - are Apple innovations.

27 Aug
Apple won more than $US1 billion after a jury found Samsung Electronics infringed six of seven patents for its mobile devices in a verdict that may lead to a ban on US sales of handheld electronics a judge deems to violate Apple's rights.